Collapse your own maul

[FightOrFlight]

Was doing an U19s internal club trial game tonight and had a little bit of an odd one perhaps. Ball comes down from a lineout and a maul forms. The team with the ball start getting pushed back slowly at first but then at a rate of knots. It was so quick that the 9 was unable to get at the ball. They went a good 20m still engaged in good positions but going backwards. They enter their 22 and I along with others think this may be some sort of remarkable driven 30m+ into your own in goal situations. Seemingly number 3 on the ball carrying team agreed as 15m out from his line he quite deliberately dropped the maul to avoid this embarrassing possibility. I PKed the number 3 and gave him a :yellow:.
The captain looked puzzled and told me "we cannot collapse our own maul sir". I know the kid in question well because I coach at the club and I just told him "it seems you just have".

After the game the coach who was looking at the trial who is a close personal friend came over and told me that he had never seen such a happening and was not sure I was correct to PK 3 or :yellow: him. I just told him he pulled the maul down, that is a PK and a yellow as it was deliberate and they were under pressure. He laughed and shrugged and said "yeh I suppose" and we went into the bar for a few of Arthur's finest.

Any thoughts?

 

[Dickie E]

Any thoughts?

Good call and well managed.

 

[FlipFlop]

Technically - if the maul was going backwards, then it wasn't going forwards, so you should have stopped in long before the 30m mark was passed, as they didn't use it. Scrum to oppo.

I can agree with your decision, but to me it seems a little harsh. The Scrum should have been given earlier, but ignoring this, then it is harsh to enforce the PK and YC. If they had been driven over the tryline, it would be a scrum 5m to the oppo. So it appears you ignored some maul laws, and enforced others very strictly.

I can have empathy for the PK decision, but YC seems too far. I would also see the empathy in a scrum turnover. I would certainly have called "Use it" way before the maul went backwards +30m, and so would have potentially avoided putting players in this position.

 

[Phil E]

Agree with FF.

It should never have been allowed to go that far.

Going backwards? Use it or lose it.

You should have given a scrum turnover long before they went 20m backwards.

 

[Jacko]

Technically - if the maul was going backwards, then it wasn't going forwards, so you should have stopped in long before the 30m mark was passed, as they didn't use it. Scrum to oppo.

I can agree with your decision, but to me it seems a little harsh. The Scrum should have been given earlier, but ignoring this, then it is harsh to enforce the PK and YC. If they had been driven over the tryline, it would be a scrum 5m to the oppo. So it appears you ignored some maul laws, and enforced others very strictly.

I can have empathy for the PK decision, but YC seems too far. I would also see the empathy in a scrum turnover. I would certainly have called "Use it" way before the maul went backwards +30m, and so would have potentially avoided putting players in this position.

Is "moving forwards" defined anywhere?? The definition suggests it has to move towards a goal line! Doesn't specify which!

 

[crossref]

Agree with FF.
It should never have been allowed to go that far.
Going backwards? Use it or lose it.
You should have given a scrum turnover long before they went 20m backwards.

what about advantage?
in this situation red have the ball, blue are going to win the turnover scrum, but they'd much rather have it 20m down the pitch. Shouldn't that delay your call of 'use it'

 

[didds]

1) YC and PK seems correct to me. Side under pressure collapses maul.

2) can;t agree with the UIOLI interpretation suggested. This doesn't seem to fit what happened here and seems harsh on the "defending" side that their superior mauling capability would be curtailed.

didds

 

[Browner]

FoF gets it right IMO,

I see no reason why a team who have: stopped a BC & held him in a maul and then driven oppo team back toward their own goal line, should be prevented from acheiving this gain in territory.

A stopped ( for 5 s) maul is deemed unplayable, so by definition an "unstopped" maul continues until it either stops or ends (lawfully or unlawfully) , irrespective of who had possession at its formation.

 

[OB..]

Is "moving forwards" defined anywhere?? The definition suggests it has to move towards a goal line! Doesn't specify which!

Agree.

 

[Phil E]

Surely 'Forward' cant mean in two opposite directions?
There can only be one Forward, can't there?
The opposite direction to Forward must be Backward?

 

[Jacko]

Surely 'Forward' cant mean in two opposite directions?
There can only be one Forward, can't there?
The opposite direction to Forward must be Backward?

I suspect it may be a clumsy attempt to mean "not sideways".

 

[FlipFlop]

In the situation described - I guess 99% of people would describe the maul as going backwards. I doubt many would describe it as going forward, as most define the direction relative to the ball carrying team.

 

[crossref]

I suspect it may be a clumsy attempt to mean "not sideways".

that's what I have always thought.
maul moving parallel to touchline = keep going
maul stationary / moving parallel to try-lines = 'use it'

 

[Jacko]

In the situation described - I guess 99% of people would describe the maul as going backwards. I doubt many would describe it as going forward, as most define the direction relative to the ball carrying team.

Yeah, but most people would call the ball carrying team the attacking team, but the laws don't agree!

 

[OB..]

Surely 'Forward' cant mean in two opposite directions?
There can only be one Forward, can't there?
The opposite direction to Forward must be Backward?

One team's "forward" is the other team's "backward". It is a relative term.
[LAWS]17.6 (c) [...] If neither team was moving forward ...[/LAWS]
Apparently it means anything but sideways or stationary.

 

[Browner]

In reality maul Law was written to deal with situations where the ball stagnated and did not avail itself. A moving maul = play on, for me,

 

[FightOrFlight]

Worth mentioning that both teams were engaged in a very structured way and it was almost like a mini scrum. To blow for the scrum once it goes backward a while does not reward the efforts to counter maul. If you have the ability to maul a team all the way down the pitch that should be rewarded regardless who has the ball. If they can push 30m and have the scrum 30m further up the pitch than otherwise that is only fair.

It was never an unsafe situation in my judgement.